"Fair" treatment for "experienced" pilots comes home to roost?

[Superpilot92]

If they continue to press to test this, I say that ALPA's position should be "Fine, overturn it, and it reverts back to previous FAA policy, IE age 60"

Nu

Now thats an idea.:beer:

 

[Dizel8]

Now thats an idea.:beer:

How is ALPA going to do that, remember ALPA HQ said age 65 was coming with or without their approval.

So what makes anyone think, ALPA has the power to change it? I would say the odds are between non existant and none!

 

[atrdriver]

Here's the deal: These guys don't want to come back. They just want the money. ALPA is going to be the single entity without a chair when the music stops. This could be the end of ALPA. (I don't think any of us will pay assesments to keep it going) This could be a good thing in the end.

If they didn't want to come back we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

 

[MILF Hunter]

How is ALPA or John Prater going to go forward protecting its membership? They (ALPA and APAAD) sold this bill in Washington based on a pilot shortage, and keeping our most experienced pilots employed. We are looking at possible furloughs at every major. How are they going to protect the junior guys and gals. My guess is ALPA won't do sh!t, as usual. I'm still waiting for a pilot shortage.

 

[ualdriver]

You anti-ALPA guys are UFB. First of all, you blame ALPA for a change in the Age 60 rule that was going to happen anyway, whether you, I, or ALPA liked it or not. But it's ALPA's fault. Fine.

Fortunately, ALPA leadership doesn't come to flightinfo.com for legislative advice. Despite having been able to keep Age 60 over the past decade or two, this time ALPA sees the writing on the wall months ago and sees that Age 60 is going to change, like it or not. They realize that they can "fight to the death" and not get a role in the rule making that will ultimately decide how Age 65 is shaped or they can change their position and have a chance of receiving some "gets."

One of the "gets" that ALPA receives for not ridiculously "fighting to the death" is wording in the Age 65 legislation that will prevent guys who have already retired under the Age 60 rule from coming back, which would obviously be pretty bad for all of us.

So now you anti-ALPA guys confuse me. You complain that ALPA didn't "fight to the death" concerning Age 60 and blame ALPA for the change. ALPA wisely didn't "fight to the death" concerning Age 60 so that they could get this wording (among other things) into the legislation to keep the already retired guys from coming back, WHICH IS WORDING THAT ALPA ONLY GOT BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON AGE 60. The only reason you don't have guys flooding back to the seniority list RIGHT NOW is because of the wording ALPA was able to obtain by not foolishly "fighting to the death." But then you complain about that, too!

For those of you who bit**ed about ALPA not "fighting to the death" concerning the rule change, how can you come on here and complain about this protection ALPA was able to fight for ONLY by being forced to change its position on Capital Hill? If ALPA had done things "your way," we'd probably already have even more furloughs as there would have been NOTHING to prevent all of these guys from coming back in the first place. Again, some of you guys are UFB!

 

[atrdriver]

You anti-ALPA guys are UFB. First of all, you blame ALPA for a change in the Age 60 rule that was going to happen anyway, whether you, I, or ALPA liked it or not. But it's ALPA's fault. Fine.

Fortunately, ALPA leadership doesn't come to flightinfo.com for legislative advice. Despite having been able to keep Age 60 over the past decade or two, this time ALPA sees the writing on the wall months ago and sees that Age 60 is going to change, like it or not. They realize that they can "fight to the death" and not get a role in the rule making that will ultimately decide how Age 65 is shaped or they can change their position and have a chance of receiving some "gets."

One of the "gets" that ALPA receives for not ridiculously "fighting to the death" is wording in the Age 65 legislation that will prevent guys who have already retired under the Age 60 rule from coming back, which would obviously be pretty bad for all of us.

So now you anti-ALPA guys confuse me. You complain that ALPA didn't "fight to the death" concerning Age 60 and blame ALPA for the change. ALPA wisely didn't "fight to the death" concerning Age 60 so that they could get this wording (among other things) into the legislation to keep the already retired guys from coming back, WHICH IS WORDING THAT ALPA ONLY GOT BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON AGE 60. The only reason you don't have guys flooding back to the seniority list RIGHT NOW is because of the wording ALPA was able to obtain by not foolishly "fighting to the death." But then you complain about that, too!

For those of you who bit**ed about ALPA not "fighting to the death" concerning the rule change, how can you come on here and complain about this protection ALPA was able to fight for ONLY by being forced to change its position on Capital Hill? If ALPA had done things "your way," we'd probably already have even more furloughs as there would have been NOTHING to prevent all of these guys from coming back in the first place. Again, some of you guys are UFB!

You don't seem to understand. While I was pretty pissed off at Prater for rolling on this, I at least understood why it happened. But your "get" that we received, in fact the main one, is that those that were already retired wouldn't be able to come back. Look at the lawsuit. I said at the time it would happen, and people said "no, the wording says they can't." I said some lawyer would take it, and they said no one would because they knew they would lose. Well, here we are, we have our lawsuit, and I would be surprised if those that did retire before the deadline aren't allowed to come back. But no, I'm not mad at ALPA, I'm mad at the whiny, worthless, SOS, greedy pricks that think that their benefiting all those years wasn't good enough, they had to screw the junior guys a few more times before they left.

 

[~~~^~~~]

... wording in the law excluded some 3,000 veteran pilots forced to retire between November 23, 2006, and December 17, 2007, from being rehired at their previously held seniority levels.

3,000 seems like an awfully big, round, number. At the airlines I am familiar with there were only a small number effected (less than a dozen across two major carriers). At FedEx they ran to the Second Officer seat as ROPES and are now in the process of bidding back.

Where does 3,000 come from? Anyone have a feel for which airlines are most effected?

In addition to the law, it seems like a private employer's own contracts would be valid. At Delta these pilots have to come back as new hires per agreement between ALPA and the Company.

In any event, what a mess. At Companies like FedEx this works out to be more than $2+ million per pilot when you figure in the benefits (less retirement not taken). Plus someone is saving a cash outlay on retirement benefits. Like ATR, I knew there would be lawsuits over this. The guys who fought hardest for the change ended up missing the deadline - everyone knew they were not going to just walk away.

I do not see ALPA's involvement though. This was Congress at work under the realization that economics and standards adopted elsewhere in the World were more compelling factors than the status quo.

 

[pipejockey]

Everyone calm down!!!

ALPA National will fight hard to prevent this from happening. They fought hard to stop age 65 and they will fight hard to stop this lawsuit.

I have all the confidence in the world in our "leadership".

HAHAHAHAHA!!! I certainly hope you are being facetious. alpo is as impotent as a post-op male to female transexual!!

 

[Flopgut]

You anti-ALPA guys are UFB. First of all, you blame ALPA for a change in the Age 60 rule that was going to happen anyway, whether you, I, or ALPA liked it or not. But it's ALPA's fault. Fine.

Fortunately, ALPA leadership doesn't come to flightinfo.com for legislative advice. Despite having been able to keep Age 60 over the past decade or two, this time ALPA sees the writing on the wall months ago and sees that Age 60 is going to change, like it or not. They realize that they can "fight to the death" and not get a role in the rule making that will ultimately decide how Age 65 is shaped or they can change their position and have a chance of receiving some "gets."

One of the "gets" that ALPA receives for not ridiculously "fighting to the death" is wording in the Age 65 legislation that will prevent guys who have already retired under the Age 60 rule from coming back, which would obviously be pretty bad for all of us.

So now you anti-ALPA guys confuse me. You complain that ALPA didn't "fight to the death" concerning Age 60 and blame ALPA for the change. ALPA wisely didn't "fight to the death" concerning Age 60 so that they could get this wording (among other things) into the legislation to keep the already retired guys from coming back, WHICH IS WORDING THAT ALPA ONLY GOT BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON AGE 60. The only reason you don't have guys flooding back to the seniority list RIGHT NOW is because of the wording ALPA was able to obtain by not foolishly "fighting to the death." But then you complain about that, too!

For those of you who bit**ed about ALPA not "fighting to the death" concerning the rule change, how can you come on here and complain about this protection ALPA was able to fight for ONLY by being forced to change its position on Capital Hill? If ALPA had done things "your way," we'd probably already have even more furloughs as there would have been NOTHING to prevent all of these guys from coming back in the first place. Again, some of you guys are UFB!

UFB?? That would be how clueless your post is!! Of course we knew this was going to happen.

ALPA/Prater put this element in to take complete care of his generation. His greed/arrogance knows no bounds, really. It's paper thin protection that could go either way as we proceed. The rule could end up 60 again, or everyone could come back. What Prater succeeded in was precluding a proper solution to the rule change which would have been: phased in, arbitrated, grandfathered, or an outright legislated dissolution of the seniority system! Command evaluation at 5 years...sink or swim.

Personally, I think he [Prater] wrote it with the intention that it fail later. At CAL, we had to let instructors back to the line that were clearly excluded by the rule. CALALAPA lawyers went to work against it right away certain it was cut and dry: They were out. Not the case. The ruling came from the FAA that these over 60 pilots could return to the line. It is believed the ruling from the FAA resulted from political pressure that came indirectly from Prater. He wanted guys like you to feel like he was helping you with this language but he doesn't intend to keep it up. Think about the medical caveate: A two year committment on no changed requirements?? Who does that help?? Do you actually think in two years the standards won't begin to change?? He's just taking care of himself and the small number of members he cares about!!

You need to sit down and think about something before you post. You're about 3 moves behind.

 

[JohnQ]

Personally, I think he [Prater] wrote it with the intention that it fail later.

One of the stranger quotes I've ever read on FI--and that is saying something. Do you have clairvoyance? Otherwise, any post starting with the words, "personally, I think..." is destined to be ignored.

At CAL, we had to let instructors back to the line that were clearly excluded by the rule. CALALAPA lawyers went to work against it right away certain it was cut and dry: They were out. Not the case. The ruling came from the FAA that these over 60 pilots could return to the line.

No one outside of CAL could possibly comment on this--too much inside dirty pool that only CAL guys could know about--so I won't comment.

It is believed the ruling from the FAA resulted from political pressure that came indirectly from Prater.

"It is believed?" "Pressure that came indirectly?" By whom? Where is your evidence? These are some rather generic claims--but that is the beauty of them--without citing ANY specifics, you can say things like "it is believed" and mention "indirect pressure" (whatever that means) to disparage Prater when it is unwarranted--and you don't have to prove anything. "It is believed" by many that the moon landing was a fake and 9/11 was a conspiracy by the Jews/US government/take your pick. But where is the evidence?

You need to sit down and think about something before you post. You're about 3 moves behind.

Seems to me that he is a (rather loud) voice of reason. I don't think he is "behind" at all.

 

[Freight Dog]

Oh, the irony...

 

[Occam's Razor]

Solution: Let them all come back...to the bottom of the list.

 

[Motown]

...but wording in the law excluded some 3,000 veteran pilots forced to retire between November 23, 2006, and December 17, 2007, from being rehired at their previously held seniority levels....

17-DEC-2007 is the date the law went into effect, but what happened 13 months earlier on 23-NOV-2006?

 

[N1VIBS]

Perhaps its time to stiffen the medical requirements for a Class I or II. Maybe a good expose to the press about how easy it is to shop around for a certificate might weed some of the old bastards out.

Be careful what you wish for. Stricter medical standards would probably weed out some over 60 pilots. Unfortunately it would get rid of a heck of a lot of pilots under 60!! I'm amazed at the number of pilots I see (and some I know personally) in their 30's 40's and 50's, who are overweight anywhere from a few pounds to God knows how much. I don't think they have heard of exercise, eat healthy, no smoking, cut down on the coffee etc. Don't believe me? Just look around.

 

[atrdriver]

Solution: Let them all come back...to the bottom of the list.

That was my original solution to this. If someone wanted to continue flying past 60 then they would go back to the FO seat. They could bid what their overall seniority could hold, but they would fly in the right seat at right seat pay. Topped out FO pay isn't too bad most places, and those that needed a little extra money could have come back that way without screwing the junior pilots. Of course that wouldn't have been good enough for them though.